The Tories lose to Labour in 1992

Whether or not Neil Kinnock was electable is completely irrelevant, as the premiership is not an elected position!

No, but as leaders are the peak individuals in their respective parties, they are the ones who are doing the majority of the persuasion at election time. Kinnock - for a variety of reasons - was not able to do that effectively.
 
My old Politics lecturer often said that, whoever you were politically, 1992 was, in hindsight, the election to lose. It's very true.

Interestingly, I remember nearing the same thing, about the US Presidential race in 1988.
 
perhaps labour wouldnt have such a large majority and so while they would probably win in 1997 but maybe not in 2002. The conservatives wouldnt be seen as so corrupt either given all the scandals that came out 1992-7
 
This has not been done on its own as a thread but has been mentioned in countless others.

If Labour win in 1992, the first immediate difference to an OTL observer would be that you have Tony Blair battling Gordon Brown - but in the guise of Neil Kinnock and John Smith. Two egos fighting over the economy which was already bruised over the shock of 1987 and 11 years of Margaret Thatcher. The Labour party shadow budget would give you some fairly good pointers as to how the Kinnock administration would have operated.

Rich to be heavily taxed, the poor not quite so heavily taxed was the first part of the budget but the Tories spun this into a campaign saying the average family would be at least a thousand pounds worse off under Labour, which was as close to an outright lie as one could get but the public swallowed it. A 10% tax increase on the upper band earners would hit the South East hard but as they weren't voting Labour, it would have hardly mattered to Neil Kinnock.

The main thrust of the 1992 campaign was the overall redistribution of wealth to even out the inequalities in British society, particularly those hit by the recession. Social spending would have seen an increase at the expense at the tax rises for higher earners. Labour might have been tempted to, as an earlier poster indicated, hit some of the right wing institutions such as the media who'd been actively hostile.

The problem that a 1992 Labour Government would have had would have been that the "loony-left" hadn't gone away as they all but had in 1997. Indeed in the book "President Gore", this particular scenario was explored and Kinnock has problems from the usual left-wing firebrands in the party like Alan Simpson.

Black Wednesday would have still hit the British economy but it's difficult to tell how deep the effects would have run. With more money in Government hands through increased taxation, there would have been more cash in the hands of the Treasury which would have some sort of impact. If the UK similarly leaves the ERM, Sterling would be allowed to float to its natural value rather than be tied to the Deutschmark and the economy could recover.

I'd have to check the book to see what else Labour did/does during its fictional tenure but I have a feeling it wins in 1997 for some reason.

What is easier to offer speculations on is the Conservative Party in 1992. Two scenarios will arise - either it'll destroy itself through infighting and a growing ideological rift between pro and anti Europeans or it'll get a new Leader and coelesce around him her. In 1992 the major candidates would be Ken Clarke, Malcolm Rifkind, Michael Howard and Michael Heseltine. Ken Clarke hasn't been Chancellor yet although he's not done badly at Education so a senior job would be in the offing. Michael Howard hasn't been tainted by the Home Office but is still responsible for the Poll Tax. Heseltine is still seen as Thatcher's assassin so Rifkind, assuming there isn't an outsider, would probably win the Leadership, almost by default. He's a moderate and not seen as tainted goods.

Of course, the various factions inside the party could take a loss in 1992 to trigger a virtual civil war in the Conservatives making it a hideous mess for the next decade as each group tries to blame each other for the colossal failures of the Thatcher administration.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Michael Howard hasn't been tainted by the Home Office

IIRC Howard was one of the most successful Home Secretaries of recent times in that he tried to lock up criminals just as they have been successful in the States at doing.
 
Come to drinks with some of my Home Office colleagues - one even worked in his office, they have stories.
 
Looking at the book alluded to earlier - this scenario has a formal Lib-Lab pact and two Lib Dem cabinet ministers (perfect feasible at the time). John Smith is moved to be Lord Chancellor after "Black Thursday" because of his heard but Lord Irving is moved to the European Commission. Gordon Brown becomes Chancellor and is forced to go cap in hand to the IMF. The IMF imposes tough conditions on the loan which ultimately lead to fuel protests - Bob Dole wins in 1996, messes about in the Middle East which doesn't help. Labour try and buy off the electorate by banning fox-hunting, scrapping tax relief on private education and ending grammar schools once and for all.

Howard becomes leader of the Tories and wins the next 3 elections, creaming the Lib-Lab coalition. Jack Straw becomes leader of Labour crushing Brown but the Tories remain in power for years and gives way to an unnamed woman leader.
 
IIRC Howard was one of the most successful Home Secretaries of recent times

Crime went down under Howard, although the operational running of the actual system was generally held to be pretty incompetent at the time. As I recall, there was a lot of prison escapes and problems with private contractors.
 
As I recall, there was a lot of prison escapes and problems with private contractors.

Certainly this is what the media reported.


Group 4, whose every prisoner escape was on the national news in their early days, actually had a lower escape rate than the public sector.
 
Shows you how much we've moved on. Now we have rapists running lose during hospital visits pretty much every day and it wouldn't even make page fourteen.
 
General Election 1992

Some interesting comment on here and some stuff that's just plain wrong but there you go...

As others have said, the Conservative majority of 21 made the victory appear greater than it really was even though the Conservatives had a clear lead in terms of the popular vote on a high turnout (78% rings a bell). I've read that the victory came down to only a few thoudand votes in some key seats.

The first scenario I think we can rule out is an outright Labour victory - the party made strong headway from its 1987 showing but still won only 272 seats, the Tories won 336 and the Lib Dems 20 if memory serves. We can probably reduce the Tories by say 20 and give them out as 14 to Labour, five to the Lib Dems (who lost Portsmouth South by 242 and Hazel Grove by 929 among others) and one to the SNP so our revised Parliament is:

Conservative 316
Labour 286
Liberal Democrat 25
Others (inc Speaker and Sinn Fein) 23

That would mean the Conservatives plus Lib Dems could form a majority but Labour plus the Lib Dems and half a dozen Nationalists would just be ahead of the combined Tory ranks.

This is in effect February 1974 revisited only I suspect John Major would not talk to Paddy Ashdown. Major has two options under the British system - either to form a minority Government and challenge the other parties to bring him down or to resign and allow Kinnock to try to form a Government. MY guess is Major would try to soldier on and put forward a Queen's Speech. On the figures above, if the Nats, Labour and LDs all voted against, they would just outvote the Tories but would the Ulster MPs abstain ?

I think we would be looking at a second election which, as in October 1974, might produce a small Labour majority.

Let's change the numbers a bit more and have the Tories lose 40 seats - 30 to Labour, 8 to the LDs and two to the Nats. That gives us:

Conservatives 296
Labour 302
Lib Dems 28
Others (including the Speaker & Sinn Fein) 24

This is more straightforward. Major would resign. The question is what kind of deal would Kinnock and Ashdown create - would it be a Lib-Lab Pact which has bad memories for Liberals or a looser coalition ? In any case, Kinnock puts forward a Queen's Speech on which the LDs and Tories abstain (the latter are too busy beginning their internal recriminations).

If it is thrown off-course by the events of September 16th 1992, Labour might face a no-confidence motion in the autumn and might fall even if the LDs abstain on the figures above.
 
Top